Second Higgs boson? Physicists debate new particle

THEeXchanger wrote:http://www.thuban.spruz.com/forums/?page=post&id=B7B7991C-BBB8-4614-B63A-F8DE31A3202B&fid=F3D0C39E-7270-4160-80DE-61A397C1A988

A detailed thread about just what the Higgs Boson is and how it is not the primordial constituent of the cosmogenesis is found here and here:

http://www.thuban.spruz.com/forums/?page=post&id=DF3DBBFF-3CB9-4ECB-BFB9-BFDB7B1BA459&lastp=1

http://www.thuban.spruz.com/forums/?page=post&id=DF3DBBFF-3CB9-4ECB-BFB9-BFDB7B1BA459&lastp=1&pageindex=1



emeth, April 14th, 2013





Quantum Relativity prediction about unnecessity of SUSY (SUperSYmmetric Particles) models in Particle Physics validated




Alex Reynolds said:
I see Tony-- so basically, the universe IS the megaverse/omniverse....can these copies have different physical laws or are physicals laws merely a matter of perception that our consciousness places artificial limits on?

I see how this can also cause nonlocality in quantum mechanical interactions as micro wormholes can tunnel between the different copies and move "virtual particles" between them....maintaining an overall balance of matter and energy.

Tony and Allen, Im curious as to what your ideas are regarding supersymmetry. Are sparticles really higher dimensional versions of "conventional" particles or could it be that "conventional" particles are actually the part of sparticles that we can actually see, because we cant detect the whole particle with our limited perspective.

I envision conventional particles as the part we can see through our "peephole" while the sparticle itself represents the full extent of the same particle. In this case, a conventional particle would merely be a shadow of a sparticle.



Reply:



1) Yes, the omniverse is any collection of multiverses, where a multiverse represents a minimum coupling of two or more phaseshifted protoverses.

It is the protoverse as the observed and measured spacetimed universe, which became defined metaphysically/mathematically in fundamental integer based constants, such as c,h,e,k, pi, natural logarithm etc. etc.

This renders the protoverse unique as an emergence from say particular algorithms, based on symmetry principles mathematically applied and to then allow the manifesto of 'approximation parameters' from previous say idealised Platonic forms.



The resolution of the wave-particle duality can be simply stated as the 'doubling' of the state vector in say the inversion of the entropy arrow. This does away with 'many worlds' and parallel universes as emerging from some prior 'primordial background' however defined.



The Schrödinger Cat is Möbius-Connected to itself in this 'doubling' of the state vector of the entropy arrow.

This then says in linguistics, that the Cat is simultaneously 'dead and alive' just as the quantum mechanical formalisms show.

It says, that the Collapse of the Cat's wave function infers the particle nature (of the live cat) to manifest in the Real Spacetime of the observer say; which simultaneously manifests the cat's wavefunction in the Mirror Spacetime of say the 'Inner Space' of the spacelikeness of the phase space.



Corollarily, the collapse of the Cat's particle function infers the wave nature (of the dead cat) to manifest in the Imaginary Spacetime of the observer (ergo the concepts of invisible dimensions and the cat's soul as some unseen reality etc.).

So at ALL TIMES of the state vectors in the phase space, the cat is indeed in a superposition of its wave particular and body particular selfstates.



If an alive Alex Reynolds walks about; he manifests his particle function externally and has 'imprisoned' his wavenature due to his 'being alive' in a bodyform.

A 'dead' Alex Reynolds, alternatively has 'released' his wave function and manifests a 'collapsed' particle function as an encorpsed bodyform.



This in a nutshell solves the Schrödinger quantum paradox as a 'doubling' or mirroring of the Real manifested spacetime with its shadow Imaginary conifolded spacetime.



Consciousness then becomes defined in the 'real volume' occupied by consciousness carriers; yet also selfenfolded (in this same real spacetime) as holographic imaginary spacetime.



2) No the SUSY sparticles are unneccessary altogether in Quantum Relativity. In its place an inherent, already unified gauge supersymmetry exists not between matter and antimatter; but between radiation gauges and their antigauges (called virtual particles of the Heisenberg matrix).

Back in the inflationary epoch it was a Higgs precursor as a bosonic dineutron, which bifurcated into the observed quark-lepton fermionic families of the Standard model.

The precursor of this Higgs precursor was superstring class HO32, namely the labeled X-Boson of the GUT unifications at about 1015 GeV.

However anti X-Bosons did NOT exist - the X-Boson as a spin-1 particle became a fermionic coupling of two 1/2-spin fermionic states.



Tonyblue


◦ November 29, 2012
◦http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=supersymmetry-fails-test-forcing-physics-seek-new-idea




◦





Supersymmetry Fails Test, Forcing Physics to Seek New Ideas

With the Large Hadron Collider unable to find the particles that the theory says must exist, the field of particle physics is back to its "nightmare scenario"

By Natalie Wolchover and Simons Science News










LHC TUNNEL: No hints of “new physics” beyond the predictions of the Standard Model have turned up in experiments at the Large Hadron Collider, a 17-mile circular tunnel at CERN Laboratory in Switzerland that slams protons together at high energies.Image: CERN

From Simons Science News



As a young theorist in Moscow in 1982, Mikhail Shifman became enthralled with an elegant new theory called supersymmetry that attempted to incorporate the known elementary particles into a more complete inventory of the universe.

“My papers from that time really radiate enthusiasm,” said Shifman, now a 63-year-old professor at the University of Minnesota. Over the decades, he and thousands of other physicists developed the supersymmetry hypothesis, confident that experiments would confirm it. “But nature apparently doesn’t want it,” he said. “At least not in its original simple form.”



As one of the early developers of a popular theory called supersymmetry, Mikhail Shifman has been disappointed to see it fail experimental tests. (Photo: Courtesy of M. Shifman)



With the world’s largest supercollider unable to find any of the particles the theory says must exist, Shifman is joining a growing chorus of researchers urging their peers to change course.

In an essay posted last month on the physics website arXiv.org, Shifman called on his colleagues to abandon the path of “developing contrived baroque-like aesthetically unappealing modifications” of supersymmetry to get around the fact that more straightforward versions of the theory have failed experimental tests. The time has come, he wrote, to “start thinking and developing new ideas.”

But there is little to build on. So far, no hints of "new physics" beyond the Standard Model — the accepted set of equations describing the known elementary particles — have shown up in experiments at the Large Hadron Collider, operated by the European research laboratory CERN outside Geneva, or anywhere else. (The recently discovered Higgs boson was predicted by the Standard Model.) The latest round of proton-smashing experiments, presented earlier this month at the Hadron Collider Physics conference in Kyoto, Japan, ruled out another broad class of supersymmetry models, as well as other theories of “new physics,” by finding nothing unexpected in the rates of several particle decays.

“Of course, it is disappointing,” Shifman said. “We’re not gods. We’re not prophets. In the absence of some guidance from experimental data, how do you guess something about nature?”

Younger particle physicists now face a tough choice: follow the decades-long trail their mentors blazed, adopting ever more contrived versions of supersymmetry, or strike out on their own, without guidance from any intriguing new data.

"It's a difficult question that most of us are trying not to answer yet," said Adam Falkowski, a theoretical particle physicist from the University of Paris-South in Orsay, France, who is currently working at CERN. In a blog post about the recent experimental results, Falkowski joked that it was time to start applying for jobs in neuroscience.

“There’s no way you can really call it encouraging,” said Stephen Martin, a high-energy particle physicist at Northern Illinois University who works on supersymmetry, or SUSY for short. “I’m certainly not someone who believes SUSY has to be right; I just can’t think of anything better.”

Supersymmetry has dominated the particle physics landscape for decades, to the exclusion of all but a few alternative theories of physics beyond the Standard Model.

“It's hard to overstate just how much particle physicists of the past 20 to 30 years have invested in SUSY as a hypothesis, so the failure of the idea is going to have major implications for the field,” said Peter Woit, a particle theorist and mathematician at Columbia University.

The theory is alluring for three primary reasons: It predicts the existence of particles that could constitute "dark matter," an invisible substance that permeates the outskirts of galaxies. It unifies three of the fundamental forces at high energies. And — by far the biggest motivation for studying supersymmetry — it solves a conundrum in physics known as the hierarchy problem.

The problem arises from the disparity between gravity and the weak nuclear force, which is about 100 million trillion trillion (1032) times stronger and acts at much smaller scales to mediate interactions inside atomic nuclei. The particles that carry the weak force, called W and Z bosons, derive their masses from the Higgs field, a field of energy saturating all space. But it is unclear why the energy of the Higgs field, and therefore the masses of the W and Z bosons, isn’t far greater. Because other particles are intertwined with the Higgs field, their energies should spill into it during events known as quantum fluctuations. This should quickly drive up the energy of the Higgs field, making the W and Z bosons much more massive and rendering the weak nuclear force about as weak as gravity.

Supersymmetry solves the hierarchy problem by theorizing the existence of a “superpartner” twin for every elementary particle. According to the theory, fermions, which constitute matter, have superpartners that are bosons, which convey forces, and existing bosons have fermion superpartners. Because particles and their superpartners are of opposite types, their energy contributions to the Higgs field have opposite signs: One dials its energy up, the other dials it down. The pair’s contributions cancel out, resulting in no catastrophic effect on the Higgs field. As a bonus, one of the undiscovered superpartners could make up dark matter.





Supersymmetry proposes that every particle in the Standard Model, shown at left, has a “superpartner” particle still awaiting discovery. (Illustration: CERN & IES de SAR)



“Supersymmetry is such a beautiful structure, and in physics, we allow that kind of beauty and aesthetic quality to guide where we think the truth may be,” said Brian Greene, a theoretical physicist at Columbia University.

Over time, as the superpartners failed to materialize, supersymmetry has grown less beautiful. According to mainstream models, to evade detection, superpartner particles would have to be much heavier than their twins, replacing an exact symmetry with something like a carnival mirror. Physicists have put forward a vast range of ideas for how the symmetry might have broken, spawning myriad versions of supersymmetry.

But the breaking of supersymmetry can pose a new problem. “The heavier you have to make some of the superpartners compared to the existing particles, the more that cancellation of their effects doesn’t quite work,” Martin explained.

Most particle physicists in the 1980s thought they would detect superpartners that are only slightly heavier than the known particles. But the Tevatron, the now-retired particle accelerator at Fermilab in Batavia, Ill., found no such evidence. As the Large Hadron Colliderprobes increasingly higher energies without any sign of supersymmetry particles, some physicists are saying the theory is dead. “I think the LHC was a last gasp,” Woit said.



According to mainstream supersymmetry models, because the superpartners have yet to be detected, they must be much heavier than the known particles, turning what was an exact symmetry into more of a carnival mirror. (Illustration: CERN & IES de SAR)



Today, most of the remaining viable versions of supersymmetry predict superpartners so heavy that they would overpower the effects of their much lighter twins if not for fine-tuned cancellations between the various superpartners. But introducing fine-tuning in order to scale back the damage and solve the hierarchy problem makes some physicists uncomfortable. “This, perhaps, shows that we should take a step back and start thinking anew on the problems for which SUSY-based phenomenology was introduced,” Shifman said.

But some theorists are forging ahead, arguing that, in contrast to the beauty of the original theory, nature could just be an ugly combination of superpartner particles with a soupçon of fine-tuning. “I think it is a mistake to focus on popular versions of supersymmetry,” said Matt Strassler, a particle physicist at Rutgers University. “Popularity contests are not reliable measures of truth.”



Adam Falkowski, a theorist currently working at CERN, said the lack of intriguing data emerging at the LHC will trigger a gradual decline in the number of jobs in particle physics. (Photo: Courtesy of Adam Falkowski)



In some of the less popular supersymmetry models, the lightest superpartners are not the ones the Large Hadron Collider experiments have looked for. In others, the superpartners are not heavier than existing particles but merely less stable, making them more difficult to detect. These theories will continue to be tested at the Large Hadron Collider after it is upgraded to full operational power in about two years.

If nothing new turns up — an outcome casually referred to as the “nightmare scenario” — physicists will be left with the same holes that riddled their picture of the universe three decades ago, before supersymmetry neatly plugged them. And, without an even higher-energy collider to test alternative ideas, Falkowski says, the field will undergo a slow decay: “The number of jobs in particle physics will steadily decrease, and particle physicists will die out naturally.”

Greene offers a brighter outlook. “Science is this wonderfully self-correcting enterprise,” he said. “Ideas that are wrong get weeded out in time because they are not fruitful or because they are leading us to dead ends. That happens in a wonderfully internal way. People continue to work on what they find fascinating, and science meanders toward truth.”

From Simons Science News (find the original story here); reprinted with permission.



Comments for this entry
◦
Ervin Goldfain says:
November 20, 2012 at 8:44 pm


To suggest that particle physics is on the verge of dying just because an entire generation of theorists have pursued a failed path is grossly inaccurate. Max Planck was credited with saying that progress in physics happens by burying one dead theory at a time. The greatest opportunities for paradigm changes develop from crises similar to the one created by the SUSY fiasco.



◦
Robert L. Oldershaw says:
November 23, 2012 at 11:36 am


Prior to the start-up of the LHC, the possibility of finding nothing appreciable beyond the standard model of particle physics was called “The Nightmare Scenario” because that meant most of the theoretical attempts over the last 40 years to explain the shortcomings of the standard model (e.g., string theory and supersymmetry, etc.) were misguided.

The main problems with the standard model of particle physics are:

1. The Standard Model is primarily a heuristic model with 26-30 fundamental parameters that have to be “put in by hand”.

2. The Standard Model did not and cannot predict the masses of the fundamental particles that make up all of the luminous matter that we can observe.

3. The Standard Model did not and cannot predict the existence of the dark matter that constitutes the overwhelming majority of matter in the cosmos. The Standard Model describes heuristically the “foam on top of the ocean”.

4. The vacuum energy density crisis clearly suggests a fundamental flaw at the very heart of particle physics. The VED crisis involves the fact that the vacuum energy densities predicted by particle physicists (microcosm) and measured by cosmologists (macrocosm) differ by up to 120 orders of magnitude (roughly 10^70 to 10^120, depending on how one ‘guess-timates’ the particle physics VED).

5. The conventional Planck mass is highly unnatural, i.e., it bears no relation to any particle observed in nature, and calls into question the foundations of the quantum chromodynamics sector of the Standard Model.

6. Many of the key particles of the Standard Model have never been directly observed. Rather, their existence is inferred from secondary, or more likely, tertiary decay products. Quantum chromodynamics is entirely built on inference, conjecture and speculation. It is too complex for simple definitive predictions and testing.

7. The standard model cannot include gravitation which is the most fundamental and well-tested interaction of the cosmos.

Clearly it is time for a new approach to understanding nature. Almost certainly this will involve expanding the set of fundamental geometrical symmetries of nature. It is now crucial to seriously question the old and poorly tested assumptions of the past like strict reductionism, absolute scale and an absolute value of G for all scales of the discrete hierarchical cosmos.

Time to study nature, not Platonic abstractions.

Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Fractal Cosmology



◦
Robert L. Oldershaw says:
November 23, 2012 at 10:47 pm


Addendum

“How can physics live up to its true greatness except by a new revolution in outlook which dwarfs all its past revolutions? And when it comes, will we not say to each other, ‘Oh, how beautiful and simple it all is! How could we ever have missed it for so long!’.” John Archibald Wheeler



◦
Victor Hamilton says:
November 30, 2012 at 2:30 am


I think that part of the incompatibility that gravity causes is because it crosses dimensional properties. We don’t yet know how to include that in our standard model mathematics. Hopefully, someone will find a way in the near future.



◦
Leif Wahlberg says:
December 1, 2012 at 3:14 am


Ervin Goldfain (and Max Planck) said it.
THIS is new and important knowledge and not a “failure”.